New Zodiac Signs. Apparently people care about it.
- Thread starter Krion_Vark
- Start date
Recommended Videos
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/13/no-your-zodiac-sign-hasnt-changed/
Basically there are two kinds of Astrology. Tropical and Sidereal. Tropical is the kind Western peoples tend to follow and nothing has changed. If you were a Sagitarius a week ago, you are a Sagitarius now.
Basically there are two kinds of Astrology. Tropical and Sidereal. Tropical is the kind Western peoples tend to follow and nothing has changed. If you were a Sagitarius a week ago, you are a Sagitarius now.
I'm a Gemini now? Hell, that's just confusing. I already had good reason to be a crab, but now I have to figure out a new meaning from this.
Me too. Your birthday is november 23?Aby_Z said:
Too bad they've changed though. I liked being a sagittarius. It was the only Zodiac Sign that got to carry a weapon after all.
I don't know...Aquarius guy seems to be packing quite an imposing vase there.Housebroken Lunatic said:Me too. Your birthday is november 23?Aby_Z said:
Too bad they've changed though. I liked being a sagittarius. It was the only Zodiac Sign that got to carry a weapon after all.
I have heard tales of women using these as a weapon when in an argument with their husbands. Few came back to tell the tale.
As a Scorpio, Libra and Virgo, I must have a very confused personality by now.
To those saying "it only counts to those born after ", I have to ask why. This isn't a sudden change, as has been noted in the article and this thread. Surely, were astrology true, the personality an individual is born with would be determined by the sign they are actually born under, and not the mistaken proclamations of astrologers working with outdated information.
Edit: Ah, here we go. From here [http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/01/new-zodiac-sign-ophiuchus-doesnt-mean-much-for-horoscope-followers-or-astrologers---dont-panic.html]:
To those saying "it only counts to those born after ", I have to ask why. This isn't a sudden change, as has been noted in the article and this thread. Surely, were astrology true, the personality an individual is born with would be determined by the sign they are actually born under, and not the mistaken proclamations of astrologers working with outdated information.
Edit: Ah, here we go. From here [http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/01/new-zodiac-sign-ophiuchus-doesnt-mean-much-for-horoscope-followers-or-astrologers---dont-panic.html]:
I want to be a crab again. OP! Make me a crab again, please. I liked being Cancer. Now I'm Gemini. The hell is that? *Looks it up*
I do not wish to be a pair of gay men.
I do not wish to be a pair of gay men.
I don't think I like this development, it seems like if you are going to change the signs because the system has changed, which that move I accept, it feels like you should change the whole representation to something more fitting the new era (era in the mystical sense not so much actual modern times perse). Then again I'm a little biased because I a)don't prescribe to the whole astrology thing and b)find just about any pseudo-scientifically mystical writing, which is pretty much any of them done before 1950ish, to be awesome and they are all big on the coming changes issuing forth a whole new psychic gestalt or some such. So if those creme de la creme of crazy can get something at least partially right, like the system having to change to account for the realignment of stars or whatever, then let em have at and set up signs for the aeon of horus or something.